Download CORE 0.70.2

[dec152000]

Hi,

JAP: There are a lot of events already reflecting the JAP political situation. Most of them were ported over from CORE1 and they may be overpowering JAP. So a comprehensive look at the political situation would be a great project.

WRT to doctrines I don't really buy the idea that the Japanese should be at a special disadvantage researching Land Doctrines. They already have rather middling TT for LD. Plus they have a lot of different areas to research and can't just focus on LAnd like the SOV. If there is any area in particular that they should struggle at we can take a look at it. Though I'd not they already have relatively poor ability to research Techs relating to Armour/Mobility and Logistics.

mm

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

CZE: there were a lot of really odd options that were built into the AUS and CZE event chains. Unfortunately, the original Dev's never fleshed out a follow on path to a lot of these small percentage options. IMO if CZE gives in without Munich we should probably code End of CZE to play out like historical. not perfect, but avoids a weird game that just goes static. I just don't feel like coding a bunch of stuff to cover something that almost never happens.

Aggressive JAP: This should still fire eventually. But JAP does have to hold a lot of CHI. Might want to review this so the Indochina portion of the Trigger isn't the one always doing the work.

mm

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

ITA HQ: Yes, the AI check was missing. That is added in. Trying to add in the 1a Armata check as well. Not sure if this will work with a Dormant unit. Will have too see. Good catch!

mm

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

ENG/POL: I have seldomly seen ENG fail to DOW GER after an attack on POL. I need you to go back and look to see if ENG has a Guarantee on POL as this is again an roughly 1% event choice where ENG is 99% to offer and POL is 98% to accept.

JAP/CHI: Nothing much has been done yet to work this issue. We need to look at multiple games before we can take any actions. I'd note that going deep into northern CHI is a bad strategic choice and probably counter prodcutive for JAP. There is really very little of value out there. Coastal CHI is a much better target and AI JAP does not typically mange to occupy the historical conquest in a timely manner. This would actually be a lot more useful to JAP.

mm

 

[Kennelly]

LOL. I noticed that too. I guess the "#" does not comment a line out of the leader file like it does elsewhere. Later, I will just remove it after I tie down another group of USA leaders.

While you're at removing him, also remove land leader Ely, who was retired since 1931. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/heely.htm

@Hagarlease also include pictures for FRA starting ministers Marcel Régnier+Maurice-Henri Gauché.

 

[Zsar1]

Re: Ship construction: Sound reasoning. I am sad to see these events go, but the benefits seem to outweight their value.
Re: CZE/GER: If we could rig it so that GER goes after SOV once it got POL without war vs. Allies, that would be a nice placeholder. I am fairly sure that ENG would eventually attack as belligerence rises.

... Do I understand correctly that in one instance, ENG did not attack GER although the annexation of CZE went its historical path (so POL was guaranteed)?
That might have interesting implications regarding the underlying AI behaviour.
Is there a save from which ENG's neutrality and war values at the time of "Danzig or War" in this case may be extracted?
(do not bother with values where POL was not guaranteed or ENG did attack; those are not of interest)

ITA HQ: [...] Trying to add in the 1a Armata check as well. Not sure if this will work with a Dormant unit.

The easy way would be to check whether the event, that removes this unit, has fired.
Being dormant, it cannot be destroyed in any other way.

I guess the "#" does not comment a line out of the leader file like it does elsewhere.

If memory serves, a blank line will disable the leader immediately below it.
I had reported this as an issue and corrected several instances in leader files in a past version of CORE.

 

[Tegetthoff]

Just to get the procedures right:

Either I can integrate various submissions and comments - but only based on 0.70.2 files and not from old threads - or Dec keeps collecting them.

Obviously, I am quite happy with Dec putting together the material, I´ll do my own modding and since I know fairly well which files I touched I can then integrate the two filesets.

Do we stick with Dec collecting the material for 0.70.3?

Regards

Teg

 

[Tegetthoff]

Re JAP/CHI balance:

While on the surface there seems to be little change, if you look in detail the IC reduction has helped China. You will now see 1940/41 China devoting IC not only to supplies and reinforcement (and failing to reinforce) but also to new production and upgrade.

I think the main point to modify are the Burma/Haiphong road events which were originally designed to syphon off 10k+ lots of money China was making with the (very old) MP to money conversion rates, which are long gone. China dives deep into the minus now, which means a stop to research, which in turn means even the slightest doctrine or land tech upgrade is impossible. So China falls so far behind in tech that by 1941/42 Japan can walk right over them.

Only when this is changed and tested in a dew dozen test runs can we look elsewhere.

And we certainly do not want Japan artificially held back in doctrines, because then they would fail in the Phillipines or Malaya, which would be just as historically inaccurate as the current win in China. And remember, the situation we saw in 0.62 where Japan never made it across the Yellow River was just as unsatisfactory.

 

[Hagar]

@Hagarlease also include pictures for FRA starting ministers Marcel Régnier+Maurice-Henri Gauché.

Done! And the TT check-up is almost finished, with only Afghanistan yet to-do.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Build: I don't feel like I need to have every file route through me. Armd's work was special as it required me to adjust a couple files he worked. So let's just submit direct to Teg after discussion on the board reaches a consensus.

ENG/POL: It is definitely possible to get the historical End of CZE and fail to end up with a Guarantee on POL. Just roughly 1%. I've adjusted the AI to try and get it too go after the SOV if this happens again. Not sure if it will work right. Or have any adverse side effects.

ITA HQ: Good idea! Normally don't like using those checks. but in this case it's perfect.

CHI: Concur on path forward. One thing I'd suggest adding is VP and IC checks to the Backoff AI as alternatives to the Lost National check. Holding enough of either of those should be enough to tone down the JAP effort. Something that approximates this would do:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Second_Sino-Japanese_War_WW2.png

Bear in mind the IC and VP transfer effects. I'd think a starting setting for VP/IC could be 50%. One other thing I'd suggest is increasing the GAR setting in Backoff even higher. I'd add 2 more points there and removed 1 each from Bergsjaeger and Militia. This should help JAP control the captured provinces and inhibit new conquests a bit.

mm

 

[Tegetthoff]

GAR Settings for JAP: yes, good way forward. We may have a problem though with the huge amount of GAR units JAP already has, so with relative build scheme the threshold two start building additional GAR is not reached or reached late-

 

[Tegetthoff]

0.70.3 schedule:

I assume Hagar will just drop one of his fine collections of gfx into my mailbox sometime soon...

Zsar:
You have referenced two filesets here, one regarding dynamic trade values and one regarding multiplayer fixes. Are those based on 0.72? If not, please rework them and repost. Thanks.

CHI/JAP: I´ll do the Burma/Haiphong stuff and the ai build changes suggested by Dec.

Dec seems to have noted down / picked up a few other comments made here.

ATM we can develop this quickly, so I may be able to build another version over the next weekend.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Yes, the JAP threshold for actual GAR production is going to be rather high d2 all of the ones they already have. this is something that just takes some trial and error testing to get the desired results. As designed JAP doesn't really build any GAR until Backoff fires. Then it should substantially stop building most other Land types and mainly build GAR.

what I need to do right now is finish adjusting the initial stockpiles. This may take me awhile as it is a lot of data entry and file edits. Otherwise I've got minimal stuff ready.

mm

 

[ArmdChair]

dec. no suggestions on alternate USA election names, for now. I am immersed in the USA Leader list right now. After that, I want to finish up the JAP OOB info in Excel and post an Excel file about the various Japanese governments (and why they fell). And, I want to trace out the supply routes into CHI using AoD-CORE provinces. Maybe after that. I was just surprised by Farley because I really wonder if he were electable in 1940. Well and good to be a kingmaker, but going for the big prize one's self might have proved much different back then. In the same vein, it might have been a toss up between Dewey and Taft on the other side. Both had pluses and minuses.

ENG did not Guarantee Polish Independence either time, IIRC.

Re: JAP Land Doctrines. A most complex subject. Remember above all, JAP generals were the children and grandchildren of Samurai. This deeply ingrained cultural tradition had not quite been shed yet (if it has to this day). I will have to expand on this later. The one I can think of offhand is Logistics. They were very bad at that, because they sneered at it. Which of course showed itself the farther they advanced into China.

You may not believe me, but JAP didn't really have any units that were much good in mountainous terrain. Just because they had what we would consider mountain artillery, doesn't make them a MTN unit. They could never root the CHC out and the one time they attempted to drive north from Haiphong, they were defeated fairly easily by the CHI.

Kennelly, I read you.

edit: 3rd iteration. No ENG DoW over POL. No Guarantee. Someone didn't remove an AI file, did they?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

That is odd. wondering if your install is corrupt. The relevant file is a vanilla event and does not revolve around any AI files as long as CZE is dealt with. The initial event is ENG 3401 and fires pretty much immediately in late March of 39 if gER controls Prague. The trigger is a bit more complex to accomodate some other situations. But in a normal game it should be a given that this even fires. So can check for it. And if it didn't fire try firing it from the console. Once it fires the next even is Vanilla POL 3600 which directly triggers from 3401. This in turn directly fires ENG 3402. So this is really simple in theory.

mm

 

[Tegetthoff]

I am in an otherwise fairly enjoyable ahistorical hands-on JAP game ATM and the Poles refused the ENG guarantee. As an extra, the Poles folder over Danzig (higher chance of that with no guarantee) and GER still attacked them the next day.

I´ll also look over those vanilla files when I am back from my current business trip. Something might have slipped in there.

Re JAP and Mtn: you may be on to something there, because one major ahistorical aspect of any JAP campaign in CHI (AI or human) is the ease with which CHC can be eliminated. Part of this may be that we model many infantry divisions as MTN based on the artillery count. This also gives them the terrain advantage in mountainouse terrain, though. I have been thinking of adding another land fort or two to Ya´nan to stiffen the Communists. Wizh CHC on their flank, any JAP sweep into Central China is signficantly more difficult.

 

[Zsar1]

Zsar:
You have referenced to filesets here, one regarding dynamic trade values and one regarding multiplayer fixes. Are those based on 0.72?

Yes. The trade value system is version agnostic (as it does not change anything existing / all added files are new) and the inherit command fixes are based on a fresh install of 0.70.2.

Re JAP and Mtn: [...] Part of this may be that we model many infantry divisions as MTN based on the artillery count.

Say... mayhap we could kill two birds with one stone here and instead model those as MAR instead?

Yes, the JAP threshold for actual GAR production is going to be rather high d2 all of the ones they already have. this is something that just takes some trial and error testing to get the desired results.

You do realise that it can be calculated?
... I actually had done this for 1938 but the table is lost. Going to rebuild it, I guess. Basic process is:

1. Take average number for each land unit type with a weight >0 in the military block.
   • Count production queue items as existing units.
   • Count dormant units as existing units.
2. Calculate difference between actual and desired counts for each unit type:
   1. Pick one type. Say GAR.
   2. Divide this type's count by weight.
   3. Multiply the result with the weight of another unit type.
   4. If the resulting number exceeds that type's count, the first type is abundant.

You want to make it so, that GAR is not abundant relative to any other land unit type.

Use the counts of the non-GAR unit types (or define an ideal distribution of those, probably a better idea) to ensure that their changed weights (as you take from those to add to GAR) still satisfy their distribution.
- Build AI does not deterministically choose the type with greatest difference between count and quota as next one to build, so if you make INF non-abundant in relation to MNT, even though GAR requires more units to reach its quota, the AI may choose to build INF first.

 

[Denniss]

Please get rid of the "when = now" commands from tech effects, this is outdated. In AoD these changes are immediately effective, changes from events either one hour after event firing or on the next day.


At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\events\other\CORE2_naval_construction_events.txt [event[26]\action_b\command[5]\which] (1102, 34):
"8171" is not a valid -1 or LeaderID
-> Leader is 8218 now

At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\leaders\usa.csv [Entry[714]\1] (715, 6):
"605846" is not a valid LeaderID
-> ID still wrong, should be 60846


Incorrect CSV column count
At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\config\world_names.csv
Expected columns: 12
Original error: Expected 12 columns, but actually 11 columns at line 554.
-> There may be more issues with this

 

[Zsar1]

Please get rid of the "when = now" commands from tech effects, this is outdated. In AoD these changes are immediately effective, changes from events either one hour after event firing or on the next day.

Are there other valid values than "now" for this parameter?
Agreeing on the proposed change, just curious.

At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\db\leaders\usa.csv [Entry[714]\1] (715, 6):
"605846" is not a valid LeaderID
-> ID still wrong, should be 60846

Strange, it is actually line 716, not 715.

Incorrect CSV column count
At D:\AoD Core 060\Core_0702\mod-CORE2\config\world_names.csv
Expected columns: 12
Original error: Expected 12 columns, but actually 11 columns at line 554.
-> There may be more issues with this

Line 553 lacks the terminating 'X' character.
Line 554 is short one "Dahomey_Togo;".

 

[Tegetthoff]

So, Gentlemen, will one of you just post a corrected world_names.csv?

Thanks

Teg